Winke bought his Samsung Galaxy S8, an Android-based device that comes with Facebook's social network already installed, when it was introduced in 2017. He has used the Facebook app to connect with old friends and to share pictures of natural landscapes and his Siamese cat -- but he didn't want to be stuck with it. He tried to remove the program from his phone, but the chatter proved true -- it was undeletable. He found only an option to "disable," and he wasn't sure what that meant.
I don't really understand why the imo better phone operating systems (Maemo/MeeGo/Sailfish & Windows Mobile/Phone) aren't more popular. Sure, nowadays they're niche products that require an effort to acquire, but I'm talking more about the critical ~2008-2010 period when Maemo and Windows Mobile were readily available and miles ahead of the competition.
Then again, Microsoft messed things up with Windows Phone even if the basic UX was pretty decent. /sigh
I suspect about the same reason as why Linux is not more popular than Windows. Even though Linux is lightyears ahead in customisability, there is no major corporate push for it and some critical apps (office software, graphics design, games) are unavailable for it.
I am a bit more curious about iOS. iPhone costs a ton. Then you pay for many apps too on top of that. Why would anyone agree to it? It's as if Apple fans were a different planet (I see them only on YT, I refuse to believe they exist in real).
For them Android was clearly good enough for something, but it was never very clear to me just what that something was. I've always thought that '07/'08 era iPhones and Android phones were clearly inferior to my contemporary feature phone, the SE s500i, which could also install apps like Opera Mini and Google Maps using Java ME.
There is a Java ME Facebook installed on my Nokia feature phone.(I don't have a FB account... I just installed it by curiosity, to see how it would work with my wife's account. Very limited, indeed.)
Samsung isn't necessarily responsible for the OS version.
Sailfish perhaps allows too much user control, therefore there will never be much corporate push for it.
A former YouTube moderator is suing YouTube, accusing it offailing to protect workers who have to catch and removeviolent videos posted to the site....The suit says many content moderators remain in their positions for less than a year and that the company is "chronically understaffed," so moderators end up working overtime and exceeding the company's recommended four-hour daily viewing limit. Despite the demands of the job, moderators had little margin for error, the suit said.The company expects each moderator to review 100 to 300 pieces of video content each day with an "error rate" of 2% to 5%, the suit said. The companies also control and monitor how the videos are displayed to moderators: whether in full-screen versus thumbnails, blurred or how quickly they moderators watch in sequence. The suit comes as moderators for social media companies speak out on the toll the job takes on their mental health. YouTube has thousands of content moderators and most work for third-party vendors including Collabera, Vaco and Accenture. The San Francisco-based Joseph Saveri Law Firm, which is representing the plaintiff, filed a similar lawsuit against Facebook that resulted in $52 million settlement in May.
Page created in 0.090 seconds with 41 queries.